re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens

quote:Where in this POS white paper does it spell out who has the authority to deem an American citizen as worthy of death?

The paper doesn't spell it out precisely (alludes to senior officials). At the risk of seeming obtuse, I have to ask why that matters. The president has ultimate authority and responsibility for these types of actions. Why do you care what senior official below him (and his advisors and analysts)deemed the available intelligence credible and conclusive before passing up the recommendation. Would you feel better if it were a judge or 12 laymen? A military tribunal? Any group? This isn't a criminal proceeding (I guess that's kind of the point of the objection, though, right). It simply isn't practical to afford that to an individual embedded inside a foreign terrorist organization.

re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens (Posted on 2/8/13 at 8:24 am to Navytiger74)

quote:The paper doesn't. At the risk of seeming obtuse, I have to ask why that matters. The president has ultimate authority and responsibility for these types of actions. Why do you care what senior official below him (and his advisors and analysts)deemed the available intelligence credible and conclusive before passing up the recommendation.

So you are in favor of political apointees determining if citizen's live or die. I guess you have never seen credible actionable intelligence that was faulty.

re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens (Posted on 2/8/13 at 8:34 am to Jbird)

quote:So you are in favor of political apointees determining if citizen's live or die. I guess you have never seen credible actionable intelligence that was faulty.

Listen. I've strayed away from my central point. The fact is that these citizens are being identified as active hostiles by a fairly rigorus process. How do we know? We use our five senses. If we still fought by lining up across the field from one another, I'd know that one of my own had gone over when I saw him marching under the other side's colors, or working on plans in their tents, or pointing his weapon at me. At that point, I could shoot his ass. It works the same way here. The government has the right to target active hostiles operating as a part of a hostile foreign force. It's as simple as that.

re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens (Posted on 2/8/13 at 8:40 am to Jbird)

quote:So you are in favor of political apointees determining if citizen's live or die.

You're drawing a fairly arbitrary line here. Political appointees determine if lots of people live or die--and how, and when. Elected judges do as well--and ordinary bone-ignorant citizens. Our target nomination and validation process isn't a trial, but it is a very rigorous process headed up by people who do nothing else for a living. If there was a way to get these bastards to trial and put their shame on display, I'm sure everyone who supports this policy would be all for it. But generally left with the options to (1) do nothing, or (2) justifiably treat them as enemy combatants, embedded with the enemy in foreign lands, and operating on his behalf, it's not that difficult a call.

re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens (Posted on 2/8/13 at 8:41 am to Navytiger74)

quote:Would you like to actually discuss your objections to the policy?

The 5th Amendent

quote:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The NDAA allows for killing US citizens based on "reasoable suspicion" based on the criteria established within the sitting President's own head. It is really that broad.

re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens (Posted on 2/8/13 at 8:43 am to Lsut81)

quote:I'm glad that we are relying on someone in Washington with an agenda to determine whether an American Citizen should be killed or not

What agenda is that? And, for the 50th time, this isn't someone slapdick in Washington randomy pulling shite out of a hat. This is a military and foreign intelligence "problem" from cradle to grave. Our elected leaders ultimately push the button because that's the way shite works in a free, civil society.

re: 78% of Ed Shulz's viewers support targeted assassinations of American citizens (Posted on 2/8/13 at 8:46 am to Navytiger74)

quote:this isn't someone slapdick in Washington randomy pulling shite out of a hat. This is a military and foreign intelligence "problem" from cradle to grave. Our elected leaders ultimately push the button because that's the way shite works in a free, civil society.

tell me where in there they have their constitutional right to defend themselves?